beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of this case citing this case is written by the court below as follows. Paragraph (2) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment on the newly raised argument by the plaintiff to this court, and thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Attachment] The ground of appeal No. 9, 2, and 16 are as follows.
Unless there are special circumstances, since the church's annual report of the members, the donation of money, and other properties derived from the revenue of the church belong to the collective ownership of the members of the church, the disposition of the properties shall follow the resolution of the general meeting by the members of the church in case where the church's articles of association or other
(2) According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2045, 2046, Dec. 9, 1980). According to the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff lawfully acquired the right to use and benefit equivalent to the ownership of the instant building without permission (hereinafter “right to use”) on November 17, 2010, and the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, the location of the instant unauthorized building.
However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 12, Article 4 (4) of the church's articles of incorporation of this case provides that "at least 1/2 of the Joint Council (real property, movable property) which is the highest decision-making authority of the CGG and at least 4/1 of the members of the CGG and the articles of association of this case are two-thirds or more of the members of the CGG, but this is deemed to be a clerical error in the resolution of at least 1/2 of the four members of the CG." However, it is recognized that the articles of association of this case stipulate that "at least 4,5, 6, 10, 11, and 13 of the members of the CG shall be resolved." However, each statement of the evidence No. 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 13 of the CG